Ravi Zacharias: No Replies to Letters, Questionnaire
by Bud Press, Director
Christian Research Service
March 11, 2005
On November 14, 2004, noted Christian apologist and philosopher, Ravi Zacharias, delivered a speech to a mixed crowd of Christians and Mormons at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah. But before he took his turn at the podium, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, caused a firestorm of controversy within many apologetic/cult-evangelistic ministries worldwide, when he took it upon himself to:
-
apologize to Mormons for the "Evangelicals" who "have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints."
-
state, "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you" and added that "both camps have tended to marginalize and simplify the others' beliefs."
-
imply that Christians have bore "false witness" against Mormons.
-
hope that "...many in the evangelical community will take part in" the "200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birthday next December" and "several scholarly events planned to celebrate during the coming year" as well.
In a moment of time, Mouw patronized the leadership and members of one of the largest cults on the planet, and did so at the expense of dedicated Christians and former Mormons worldwide. Although Mormonism makes "gods" of men, denies the deity of Christ, virgin birth, Trinity, salvation by grace alone and blasphemes the God of the Bible, not one of the thousands of Christians listening to Mouw--including Ravi Zacharias--stood-up and confronted him either during or immediately after his speech.
While Mouw eventually provided replies to those disturbed by his statements, Zacharias has chosen not to reply to letters and a questionnaire from concerned Christians within the field of apologetics and cult evangelism.
First attempt to contact Zacharias
After a careful evaluation of the available information leading up to and immediately after Zacharias' speech, on November 20, 2004, Bud Press, Director of Christian Research Service, wrote a letter to Zacharias and requested both a transcript of his 11/20/04 speech and a statement on Mouw's controversial comments. After all, Zacharias claims to be a Christian apologist, and is the editor of the late Walter Martin's book, The Kingdom of the Cults (2003 edition).
Moreover, by his own words, Zacharias is known for offering "answers" to both the "skeptic and the believer" on a variety of issues:
"To the questions of the skeptic and the believer we offer an apologetic – we give an answer – to the counterclaims of secularism and other worldviews. We address the intellectual and essential assumptions of our culture, realizing that for some, the door to the heart is through the mind, and for others through the imagination" (Ravi Zacharias, "Ministry Description").
But in an e-mail titled, "Response from RZIM" dated November 22, 2004, it was Betsy Childs, Staff Writer for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries who replied, stating in part that:
-
a transcript of Zacharias' 11/14/04 speech at the Mormon Tabernacle is not available, but that a recorded version could be purchased from Greg Johnson's website at www.standingtogether.org/resources.html .
-
Zacharias' took a "strong stand" in his speech.
-
Zacharias "will not be issuing a public statement" on Richard Mouw's comments.
Apparently, Zacharias passed-the-buck to Childs who, in turn, passed-the-buck to Richard Mouw by encouraging Press to contact Mouw under the Biblical guideline of "conflict resolution."
Conflict resolution. Interesting choice of words.
Thus, when it comes to requesting information, a statement and answers to important questions, Zacharias has chosen to play it safe, say nothing, and hope the controversy and letter-writers and question-askers will silently fade away, never to be heard from again.
But that's not likely to happen. For until Zacharias is willing to stop being used by the Mormon church and its sympathizers, be accountable to the body of Christ and accept responsibility for his actions, there will always be letters and questions.
Second attempt to contact Zacharias
In a second attempt to contact Zacharias, Press--along with pastors, evangelists and apologists--provided a list of Questions for Ravi Zacharias on February 6, 2005.
But on February 8, 2005, again it was Betsy Childs who replied to Press on "behalf of Ravi Zacharias."
Childs' stated, in part, that Zacharias has no desire to "engage" with Press "in a public debate." And because Press considered this a public issue, Childs presumed it was "an attempt to thrust Dr. Zacharias into a public conversation that he has chosen not to have."
It is important to note that the introduction to the Questions for Ravi Zacharias clearly and plainly states, in part, that: "Christians need to be accountable to the body of Christ, whether their ministry is a local pastorate or international." The letter to Zacharias mentions nothing about a "public debate," and the questionnaire certainly wasn't an attempt to thrust Zacharias into a "public conversation."
Childs continued and found it "puzzling" that Press would invoke "Matthew 18:15-17" to suggest that since Dr. Zacharias's speech at the Mormon Tabernacle was a public event," Zacharias "must now publicly respond to questions about it."
Again, the introduction to the questionnaire plainly states that "The meetings in Utah took place in a public forum, which means that this issue does not fall within the guidelines of Matthew 18:15-17. Therefore this questionnaire and your reply will be made available to the body of Christ. Public issues deserve public responses, as seen several times in Scripture (Acts 15:6-7; 15:38-39; 1 Corinthians 7:1; etc.)" (emp. not in original).
Needless to say, both the letter and questionnaire are simple to understand, void of linguistic and philosophical confusion, and were purposely written on a 10th grade level--regardless of Childs' interpretation.
Separating the 'inappropriate' questions from the 'appropriate'?
Three days after the questionnaire was provided to Zacharias and other Christians, a source close to Zacharias contacted Press via e-mail, and stated, in part, that:
"I did read your questions. They were far more than the several you expressed on the phone that day! I was very surprised that you posted them publicly before we had the opportunity to process them through Ravi. This will probably complicate things. There are a number of 'questions' that are inappropriate in my and others' opinion, and some very appropriate. I will take the one's I consider appropriate to him and report back his responses to those. I'm assuming you sent the letter to Ravi so he can respond to the rest as he chooses although I'm not sure I would respond if I received it"
On February 20, 2005, the same source wrote that he would call Press and get "on target with the issues" with Zacharias, "but it will have to wait until after next week."
As of this writing, there has been no reply from the source.
Again, it is important to note that Ravi Zacharias' speeches during mid-November 2004 in Salt Lake City, were advertised publicly (not privately), and conducted in a public (not private) forum, with thousands in attendance. That's about as public as you can get. Thus, Matthew 18:15-17 did not apply in this particular situation.
It is also important to note that while the source considered a "number" of the questions "inappropriate" and others "very appropriate," the introduction to the questionnaire clearly and plainly states that:
"The questions are from pastors, evangelists and apologists who care deeply about the body of Christ and the truth of God's word. The questions are based on documented information."
Note the words, documented information.
The number of questions could have easily doubled, but were edited for space. And, those who contributed to the questionnaire didn't consider any of the questions "inappropriate." Thus, all of the questions presented to Zacharias were, indeed, sincere and most appropriate.
Bottom line: If questions for a world renowned Christian such as Ravi Zacharias have to be sifted through a pick-and-choose/screened-gauntlet beforehand, then why bother asking the questions in the first place? Maybe that's why a growing number of Christians hesitate to ask the tough questions. Maybe they fear rejection or reprisal from fellow Christians.
Whatever the case may be, honest questions deserve honest answers, due to the fact that no Christian--regardless of their position within the body of Christ--is above being asked; nor are they above accountability. This isn't a popularity contest. This is serious business.
Christians should never be afraid to ask questions. Then, depending on the circumstances, hold those accountable who refuse to answer.
More letters. No replies
Rauni Higley and her husband, Dennis, are former Mormons, now Christians, with an outreach ministry to Mormons. Rauni worked as a translator for LDS church leaders for 14 years, and was an active Mormon for 20 years. Both Rauni and Dennis were dedicated Mormons and were well versed in LDS doctrine.
On September 15, 2004, almost two months before Zacharias spoke at the Mormon Tabernacle, Rauni wrote a compelling letter to Zacharias, stating, in part:
"I have been very troubled by your coming visit to speak in the Mormon Tabernacle, because I am sure that it will be used by the Mormon Church as your endorsement that Mormonism is part of Christianity. I am also absolutely sure that your name will be used in months and even years to come by the LDS Church, and its almost sixty thousand missionaries, to convert more people into Mormonism from Christianity, especially if you also meet with the Mormon Church‘s president and other leaders.
"The only way that this can be avoided is if you clearly speak of Jesus who is not 'Lucifer’s/Satan’s brother', but the Creator of him and all things, visible and invisible (Col. 1:16), also making clear to all listening, that God of the Bible is not a former mortal man, but Eternal God, 'from everlasting to everlasting' (Ps. 90:2), who does not have Gods before Him (Is. 43:10) nor after Him, as is taught by the Mormon Church that men will become gods, like their God had 'become' a God.
"I have been familiar with your Ministry for many, many years, and I have enjoyed listening to you on Christian radio, and reading many of your books. It saddens me however to know that your name will be used to promote a cult of Mormonism. I know how Mormons think and how they use Christian terms to say something totally opposite. It is a very clever plan to get accepted into Christianity without changing any of their doctrines. 'Been there, done that'." (emp. theirs)
Indeed, while Rauni's experience as a member of the Mormon church qualifies her as an expert on Mormonism, her being a Christian qualifies her to reach out and share her concerns for what Zacharias was about to willingly walk into.
Rauni's letters to Zacharias are not only visionary in scope and hauntingly insightful, they encouraged Zacharias and challenged him to remember the importance and definition of apologetics, and the desperate need to draw a distinction between historic Christianity and Mormonism, and put things in terms that everyone, especially Mormons destined for hell, could understand.
Yet, in the midst of her concern, truth and love she shared in her letter, Rauni received no reply from Zacharias, whatsoever, or from anyone within his ministry.
Neither was there a reply to Rauni's November 22, 2004 letter to Zacharias.
Yes, considering the volume of correspondence that Zacharias receives on a regular basis, the impossibility of his personal reply to everyone is perfectly understandable. However, there are exceptions to the rule. The letters and questionnaire were serious business, and represented the concerns of Christians worldwide, many of whom know Zacharias personally.
Therefore, at this point, by his refusal to answer letters and questions, Ravi Zacharias joins a list of individuals, all of whom have, for whatever reason, chosen not to reply to the concerns and questions of Christians. They have established for themselves a sort of exclusive diplomatic immunity to replying to letters and answering the honest and sincere, but tough questions.
William Shakespeare was correct when he wrote,
If they make you not then the better answer, you
may say they are not the men you took them for
Sometimes, an outright refusal to answer letters and questions is an answer in and of itself.
Sincerely in Christ,
Bud Press, Director
Christian Research Service
March 11, 2005
(Jude 3)